All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter

(i)Any disclosable pecuniary interests and /
or

(ii)Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting

NOTES:

Members are
reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have
a disclosable pecuniary interest

As well as
an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the
Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil
partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse
or civil partner)

Members
with a significant personal interest may participate in the
discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be
reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

Recommendation: That under Section
100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded
from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds
that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under
the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the
Act.

To inform the Member Conduct
Panel about the outcome of an investigation into alleged breaches
of the Code of Conduct by a member and to invite the Panel to make
decisions as to the future progress of the complaint.

1)The Member Conduct Panel has been established as
part of Surrey County Council’s arrangements for dealing with
complaints made about the conduct of Surrey County Councillors and
Co-opted Members.

2)Mr Martin is a Member of Surrey County
Council.

3)Mr Bernard Quorroll has
been appointed by Surrey County Council as an Independent Person as
defined by S28(7) of the Localism Act 2011

Consideration of Complaint

1.The Member Conduct Panel met on 30 November 2018 to
consider the report of an investigation into a complaint where the
complainant had alleged that questions asked of them by Mr Martin
during a meeting with him were ‘unlawful’ and
‘unjustified’ and that the line of questioning
constituted harassment and discrimination.

2.Prior to taking the decisions set out below the
Panel sought and took into account the views of the Independent
Person.

3.The complaint was initially considered by the
Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person and the matter was
referred for an investigation into whether there had been a breach
of paragraphs 3 and 9 of the Council’s Code of Conduct for
Members (the Code).

4.Paragraph 3 of the Code provides:
‘When carrying out your
public duties you must make all choices (such as making public
appointments, awarding contracts or recommending individuals for
rewards or benefits) on merit, and must be impartial and be seen to
be impartial.’The Investigating
Officer found that there had been no breach of this paragraph
because, in his conversation with the complainant, Mr Martin was
not taking part in a decision making process.

5.The Investigating Officer found that Mr
Martin’s conduct during the meeting with the complainant did
amount to a breach of Paragraph 9 of the Code, which provides:
You must promote and support high standards of conduct
(characterised by the above requirements) by leadership and example
when serving in your public post.

6.The Member Conduct Panel met to consider whether Mr
Martin did fail to comply with the Code, and what action to
take.

7.After hearing from the Investigating Officer and
from Mr Martin, and consulting the Independent Person, the Panel
asked the Investigating Officer to provide further information as
to the feedback provided by Mr Martin following his meeting with
the complainant. On receipt of this information, the Panel
concluded that Mr Martin was not taking part in a decision making
process in his conversation with them, and had therefore not failed
to comply with Paragraph 3 of the Code.

8.The Panel considered all the circumstances of the
case, and concluded that Mr Martin had failed to comply with
Paragraph 9 of the Code.